On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So we can more easily see if the shiny got enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/kaiser.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/kaiser.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/kaiser.c
> @@ -425,6 +425,8 @@ void __init kaiser_init(void)
> if (!kaiser_enabled)
> return;
>
> + printk("All your KAISER are belong to us\n");
> +
All your incomprehensible academic names are belong to us.
On a serious note, can we please banish the name KAISER from all the
user-facing bits? No one should be setting a boot option that has a
name based on an academic project called "Kernel Address Isolation to
have Side-channels Efficiently Removed". We're not efficiently
removing side channels. The side channels are still very much there.
Heck, the series as currently presented doesn't even rescue kASLR. It
could*, if we were to finish the work that I mostly started and
completely banish all the normal kernel mappings from the shadow**
tables. We're rather inefficiently (and partially!) mitigating the
fact that certain CPU designers have had their heads up their
collective arses for *years* and have failed to pay attention to
numerous academic papers documenting that fact.
Let's call the user facing bits "separate user pagetables". If we
want to make it conditioned on a future cpu cap called
X86_BUG_REALLY_DUMB_SIDE_CHANNELS, great, assuming a better CPU ever
shows up. But please let's not make users look up WTF "KAISER" means.
* No one ever documented the %*!& side channels AFAIK, so everything
we're talking about here is mostly speculation.
** The word "shadow" needs to die, too. I know what shadow page
tables are, and they have *nothing* to do with KAISER.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
